Message from Kwasy in The Right Server #serious

2018-09-04 04:11:20 UTC  

I’ve already posted the link about the reliability of Rudolf Höss. It’s true that Höss’s testimony that 900 Russians were gassed at once in Crematorium I is not possible. The capacity of the room is 700-800, so it may simply be that he misremembered the exact numbers. I disagree with Pressac on the idea that the holes couldn’t have been installed while the transport was unloaded. For one thing, Höss says that the holes were “simply punched” through, not drilled, which is what Pressac says. The ceiling was also “earth and concrete,” not just concrete. It doesn’t seem particularly impossible for holes to have been installed in the time it took to unload the transport.

2018-09-04 04:11:24 UTC  

Pressac himself acknowledges that he thinks Pery Broad’s testimony isn’t entirely reliable, and that it may have been edited by Poles (by no means consensus; Aynat considers the reason why Pressac uses him as proof that gassings took place at Krema I despite his reservations “an enigma.” But Pressac is very clear that he doesn’t think the entire report is worthless, but instead that it can’t be taken at face value because he considers it to have been edited by the Poles. Pressac is very clear that the basic fact that gassings took place in Krema I can be seen as a historical fact using his testimony, as well as the testimonies of the other three, because, although there are some differences regarding details, the underlying truth that there were gassings at Krema I is found in all 4 testimonies. There is absolutely no reason why these testimonies should not be seen as reliable attestations to the use of Krema I as a gas chamber. Either way, if you read the link I posted from holocaustcontroversies, you can see that Pressac’s hypothesis was probably wrong, so it isn’t really all that important to defend Broad’s reliability; most don’t reject it.

2018-09-04 04:11:34 UTC  

Now for Bunker 1. It’s true that most of the witnesses cited are very vague in their descriptions. This is because none of them actually worked there. Höss is really the only reliable witness concerning the exact properties and usage of the Bunker, since he’s the only one of the six who had intimate knowledge of it. The value of citing these witnesses (besides Broad, who Pressac says was in fact talking about Bunker 2 rather than Bunker 1) is in the fact that they all attest to the existence of the building. This is important because the building was “carefully dismantled without leaving any ruins.” The supposed contradictions can be very easily explained by the fact that none of these witnesses, besides Höss, knew anything about what was going on inside with their own eyes. Fortunately, we can know from Höss and Dragon that gassings did take place within Bunker I. Dragon gets the number completely wrong, but since he knew that there were gassings at Bunker II it makes sense for him to have known what was going on in Bunker I as well. But the real prime witness to gassings here is Höss. As a result, though Aynat may wish otherwise, it is very possible to maintain the historical reality that gassings took place here.

2018-09-04 04:11:39 UTC  

For Bunker 2, Aynat attempts to discredit Dragon’s testimony based on a drawing featured on page 175 of the book. Dragon says there were 4 parts of the cottage divided by partitions, but the drawing appears to show 8. Unfortunately, Aynat seems to be blind; the drawing clearly divides the cottage into 4 parts, as can be seen by the numbers. Here’s a link to the image The second point Aynat makes, that Dragon has clearly exaggerated the capacity, is legitimate, which makes sense; Pressac said the exact same thing in his book. The problem is that Pressac’s explanation of why this is the case makes perfect sense. Eyewitnesses tend to exaggerate things, and Dragon is no exception. That does not mean his entire testimony should be thrown out.
Aynat then moves onto Broad, saying the same thing as before; why does Pressac use Broad if he thinks it’s not entirely reliable? Since it’s the exact same point as before, refer to the explanation provided before.
For Höss, it’s true that his numbers are probably wrong. He wrote his autobiography in 1947, so it makes sense that he might misremember the numbers regarding the gassings, which ended several years earlier.
Dr. Nyiszli's testimony does not affirm "that there were no gas chambers in Bunker 2" like Aynat claims. Nyiszli was a witness to the Bunker when Zyklon B was not being used. Pressac notes that this period of executions was “that without Zyklon B.” So he doesn’t affirm that there were no gas chambers, only that when he was there that there were no longer any, which lines up with correct history.

2018-09-04 04:11:45 UTC  

Aynat seems to have failed to read what Pressac said about David Olére. If he had paid a little bit more attention, he would have seen that this point in the summer of 1944 was when Bunker 2 had been “reactivated and operating as a gas chamber.” This is why it differs from Nyiszli’s testimony, although they seem broadly contemporary. Nyiszli writes about a period in summer 1944 when there were no gassings, and Olére’s drawing depicts a period in summer 1944 when there were. There is no contradiction here.
Since Pressac doesn’t really use Müller as a witness for Bunker 2 at all, instead choosing to call his work “a novel based on true history,” I won’t bother defending his reliability regarding exact details. The important thing to note his his agreement on the broad detail that Block 2 was used as a homicidal gas chamber. All of these witnesses attest to this basic fact, which is why it absolutely is possible to accept the historical reliability of the existence of a homicidal gas chamber here.

I disagree with Pressac’s characterization of executions prior to 30th June 1942 as “ad hoc and totally improvised,” essentially for the same reasons Aynat does. Fortunately, one mischaracterization does not mean that the entire conventional history is wrong.

2018-09-04 04:11:49 UTC  

Aynat claims that Pressac’s claim that 1000-1500 were gassed at a time contradicts the German numbers. Aynat seems confused here; Rudolf Höss’s number of 3000 is for both gas chambers, and Tauber’s numbers refer to incineration, not gassing (Pressac also says that these numbers are impossible.) Pressac notes that some of Dr. Nyiszli’s figures are very wrong, so it’s reasonable to figure that he’s including Nyiszli’s clear error of 3000 people in one gas chamber here. Aynat also wasn’t reading Bendel's account very well either, since his numbers, like Tauber’s, refer to incineration capacity, not gassing. Pressac’s analysis of these numbers, which are wrong, reveals where his number of 1000-1500 comes from; “1440 for Krematorium II according to a letter of 28th June 1943 signed by Jährling. A purely calculated Figure, the practical “throughput” being closer to 1000.” So Pressac’s numbers aren’t “mere suppositions.” It’s amazing how many mistakes Aynat can make in one short paragraph.

Aynat’s “opinion” that the gas chambers could not be thoroughly ventilated after only 20-30 minutes are clearly wrong in the face of witness testimony. The ventilation system did work. Höss says that “Crematories [II and III] both had underground undressing rooms and underground gas chambers in which the air could be completely ventilated,” and “The door was opened a half an hour after the gas was thrown in and the ventilation system was turned on.” As well, in Auschwitz: A History, Steinbacher writes that for Crematoria II and III, unlike Crematoria IV and V, there was a ventilation system that “sucked out the poison gas.”

2018-09-04 04:11:54 UTC  

It makes sense for the ventilation system to seem like that of a mortuary, and even for it to function best for a mortuary. Aynat claims that ventilation would be highly improbable because of several factors, including the fact that the ventilation system was designed for a morgue rather than a homicidal gas chamber. Pressac agrees with him; here’s what he has to say on the matter:

“Its use as a gas chamber really required the reverse situation, with fresh air coming in near the floor and warm air saturated with hydrocyanic gas being drawn out near the ceiling. But the SS and Prüfer chose to maintain the original “morgue” ventilation system in the gas chamber, hoping that it would be efficient enough. The famous ten gas detectors, ordered through Topf, were used to check this point, and probably also to cheek the gas-tightness of the door sealing. It would appear that by the evening it was established that the ventilation was almost satisfactory, and that 20 to 30 minutes appeared sufficient to bring the HCN concentration down to a reasonable level so that the door could be opened and the future (corpse) “extraction commando” could start its work in reasonable safety. In the author’s opinion, it was still necessary to make some adjustments and modifications before the optimal result was achieved.” (224)
So the SS were aware that the gas chambers could be more optimized for homicidal purposes, but decided it was good enough as is. In the end, they were right, though Pressac thinks they could have done better. Remember that we’re dealing with fallible people here, not robots.

2018-09-04 04:12:03 UTC  

Aynat also makes a mistake in comparing the two hours of ventilation it took before reentering the delousing chambers and the 30 minutes it took before reentering the homicidal gas chambers. There is a completely different level of safety, a different dosage of Zyklon (insects are much harder to gas than humans,) a different intent, etc.

For once, Aynat’s hypothesis is correct. The Germans did, in fact, design Leichenkeller 1 as a mortuary, and “constructed it and used it as for just that purpose.” But the mortuary was then converted into a homicidal gas chamber, and used for that purpose.

Most of Aynat’s early criticisms of Kremas IV and V are logistical, calling out the poor design of the buildings. As stated before, these were fallible humans, not robots. Just because the design was imperfect does not mean that they were not used as homicidal gas chambers. The poor design is a known historical reality, and Pressac addresses it in his book here; Aynat seems to think he’s providing groundbreaking proof that these weren’t homicidal gas chambers, but in reality everything he’s saying is well known and has been addressed already

2018-09-04 05:09:11 UTC

2018-09-04 05:09:21 UTC  

Now this is interesting

2018-09-04 07:20:15 UTC  


2018-09-04 11:24:24 UTC  

@Noxar youtube comment not an argument

2018-09-04 11:25:23 UTC  

lmao, as if it discredits what he says. Look up Verwoerd then

2018-09-04 11:28:12 UTC  

it discredits what he says because it is a youtube comment

2018-09-04 11:54:54 UTC  

By that logic anything said on Discord is discredited as well

2018-09-04 11:55:44 UTC  

@LaCraig can I get News Reporter to post German news stories in <#356271865876185088>

2018-09-04 11:56:07 UTC  

Because nobody else seems to be doing that, it's just US and British news

2018-09-04 12:13:55 UTC  

@Kwasy as long as the articles are in English that would be great

2018-09-04 12:14:14 UTC  

It is because a majority of our userbase is in either the US or England

2018-09-04 12:16:15 UTC  


2018-09-04 20:01:16 UTC  

I think we should make a rule that makes being a Jewish zionist a bannable offense

2018-09-04 20:22:51 UTC  

Do it with muslims in that case.

2018-09-04 20:23:18 UTC  

there's a suggestions chat

2018-09-05 14:47:55 UTC  

@TradChad if this account gets banned soon can I get news reporter on my second account?

2018-09-05 14:48:23 UTC  


2018-09-05 14:48:40 UTC  

k I'll dm you the name so someone else won't larp as me

2018-09-05 15:52:01 UTC  

whoever the spy is, he has access to <#486385308951379968>

2018-09-05 15:52:46 UTC  

oh wait everyone has access to <#486385308951379968> but not everyone can talk here

2018-09-05 19:02:42 UTC  

I would but not rn

2018-09-05 19:46:43 UTC  

I would but it's pointless as we will just be agreeing on each other the whole time and nobody's gonna get redpilled in a conversation like this]

2018-09-05 19:47:10 UTC  

now if you were a zionist cuck like usa1932, I would have a conversation about it in the hopes of redpilling that nerd

2018-09-05 20:14:16 UTC  

you wouldn't get very far considering I've already heard all the arguments and know why I disagree with them but you're welcome to try

2018-09-05 20:14:30 UTC  

and again I'm not a Zionist

2018-09-05 20:15:02 UTC  

that's something a Zionist would say

2018-09-05 20:15:10 UTC  

I bet you have a star of David on your wall

2018-09-05 22:07:08 UTC  

I have a star of David badge on my chest

2018-09-06 01:02:03 UTC  

Holy shit we have a whole essay up there

2018-09-06 01:33:46 UTC  

there's two, pebble's is just shorter

2018-09-06 01:41:01 UTC  


2018-09-06 01:50:26 UTC  

don't mean to derail the convo but i hope Nike's stock crashes and they are forced to retract that reprehensible Kaepernick ad.

2018-09-06 02:19:29 UTC  

```-Should the US government make an effort in some way to allow smaller political parties have more influence over policy rather than only the two main ones decide all decisions?```
theocratic one party state
```-Should State's Rights be more expanded, restricted, or done away with entirely?```
done away with entirely
```-With all of the issues that the US faces, can the two-party constitutional republic system solve them?```
```-Would an alternative to capitalism be feasible/better for the US?```
yes, marxist-leninism
```-In your opinion, what form of government/leadership/system would you like to see used in the US and why? If you wouldn't want change, why?```
councilist marxist-leninism centralizing in an autocephalous theocratic system